Im just being honest

I don't understand why we've normalized putting dead animals in movies just for shock value. Even when the animal isn't real and it's made with props or visual effects, I still have to ask: why are we doing it?

Take Obsession, for example. I know it's fake. I know no real animal was harmed. That doesn't change the fact that seeing a dead animal on screen can be disturbing, especially for people who genuinely love animals or have experienced losing a pet. Not everyone wants to be surprised with graphic imagery that adds little to the story.

People are quick to say, "It's just fake." But that's not really the point. Horror, thrillers, and dramas don't need dead animals to prove they're dark or emotional. Good writing, acting, and atmosphere can create tension without relying on upsetting imagery.

I'm not saying filmmakers should never depict animal death. Sometimes it's genuinely important to the story or reflects real-life events. But too often it feels like a shortcut to make the audience uncomfortable instead of earning that emotional reaction through the narrative.

We should normalize asking whether those scenes are actually necessary. If a dead animal can be replaced with another storytelling device and nothing about the plot changes, then maybe it didn't need to be there in the first place.

At the end of the day, this isn't about confusing fiction with reality. It's about recognizing that certain images affect people differently. Wanting fewer scenes involving dead animals doesn't make someone "too sensitive"—it just means they have different boundaries about what they want to see in entertainment.

Movies can be powerful without using dead animals as a visual shock tactic. I think that's a standard worth aiming for.